Former US Ambassador Neumann, Sets tone of US Policy in Bahrain – “Prevent Democracy”

Former US ambassador agonises over ‘stability’
Opposing democracy in Bahrain
by Brian Whitaker – 22 December, 2013

The latest issue of the Middle East Policy Council’s journal contains a lengthy essay on US policy towards Bahrain, basically arguing that reforms in the tiny Gulf kingdom should stop short of full democracy.

Its author, Ronald Neumann, is a former US ambassador to Bahrain and currently president of the American Academy of Diplomacy in Washington, and his essay is a troubling example of the extraordinarily charitable attitude that many in the western diplomatic establishment still display in relation to Gulf autocrats.

Neumann rightly points out that US policy towards Bahrain, in its present form, lacks clarity and is leading nowhere. He also points out that almost everything about the situation in Bahrain “is as contested as it is complicated”.

If the need is for clarity, though, it might be better to dwell less on the complexities (which Neumann does at length) and focus instead on some guiding principles.

One clear and simple principle which would serve as a good starting point is that people everywhere have a right to choose their own government and hold it accountable – and that when they seek to exercise their right it should not be the role of the US, or anyone else, to stand in their way.

In Bahrain’s case, that basic principle has become clouded by other concerns such as America’s perception of its regional interests and a desire for stability. The US is no exception in this – all countries seek to protect their own interests – but when those interests appear to conflict with democracy we need to ask whether they are being interpreted correctly.

Stability and US ‘interests’

The “stability” argument is an old and familiar one that has led the US down the wrong path many times before. Stability sounds comforting and desirable but in the Middle East particularly it is also a codeword for preventing significant change. Autocratic regimes promise their people stability in return for acquiescence – and that is dangerous because in the long run it leads to more instability, not less.

Political systems actually need a degree of instability because that is how change comes about. Reforming early and often, before the system crashes, is the way to keep it healthy and resilient. The alternative – the “artificially constrained systems” beloved of Arab autocrats – may look calm on the surface but as pressure builds up below they are liable to explode.

Regimes that fail to recognise this and refuse to take reform seriously are planting the seeds of future instability, as are the countries that support them.

There’s a similar problem with defining “American interests”. Are we talking short-term or long-term? Policies that seem a good idea in the short term may turn out to be a very bad idea in the long term, especially in the Middle East. The region is in the throes of a political upheaval that will take decades to play out. Somewhere along the way the monarchies of the Gulf will either fall or become marginalised beyond recognition and other countries, including the US, need to start preparing for that. Leave it too late and they risk ending up on the wrong side of history.

A case against democracy

Opposing real democracy in Bahrain may not strike many people as a particularly smart way to prepare for the future, but let’s consider Neumann’s argument.

His starting point is that Shia Muslims form a majority of Bahrain’s population (nobody is quite sure how big a majority they are because the government would rather not find out). Thus, in a one-person-one-vote system, if Bahrainis voted along sectarian lines, the result would be a permanent Shia majority with no alternation of power. Neumann writes:

“When people vote as a community, an elected majority becomes a function of community size. This is very different from a flexible system in which losers in one election believe they have a chance to become winners at another time. If the tyranny of a minority is (rightly) seen as wrong by the majority, absolute control by the majority is equally seen as wrong by the minority.”

That certainly presents some problems (which I’ll come to shortly) but Neumann seems reluctant to acknowledge that this hypothetical tyranny of a Shia majority could scarcely be less accountable than what we have today: the tyranny of a Sunni minority headed by the Khalifa family.

Apart from the king himself, the apparently unsackable prime minister is the king’s uncle. He has been in office for almost 44 years and is the world’s longest-serving prime minister. Four of the five deputy prime ministers are also members of the Khalifa family, as are the ministers of interior, finance, foreign affairs, justice and culture.
…more